Like many here I've been speculating as to what D.O.D. is up to in its plans for the future of the service pistol. Well I had a meeting today with my Sigarms LE rep and he told me that D.O.D. has put out an initial request (more like an FYI as I understand it) that it will be requesting bids for a new service pistol.

The only specs I was told was that its was to be in .45 ACP and Double Action and the contract is for 600,000 pistols

Interesting , looks like H&K would be in the best position as they have several versions already in their line.

Its going to be interesting to see how this plays out and if D.O.D. will keep the usual spec that the pistol must have double strike capability. (which whacked Glock)

If it's going to be a double action .45, I'd give my vote to the HK USP series if I had any choice. However, price alone will probably keep HK down at the bottom of the list. This would lead me to believe SIG has the best oppurtunity, not to mention multiple pistol contracts before.

However, I'll be really surprised if they actually are looking for a .45 for a general service pistol.

Tell me it won't be Ruger!

Quoted: Tell me it won't be Ruger!

Ruger makes a bulletproof semi-auto, why the hell not?

If they can make a pistol that pasts muster, good for them.

Quoted: Quoted: Tell me it won't be Ruger! Ruger makes a bulletproof semi-auto, why the hell not? If they can make a pistol that pasts muster, good for them.

+1 If the military sets a standard and Ruger or who ever else meats it and has the better pistol that fits the bill then may the best pistol win. I sure hope our military does not buy their wepons based on the latest fad at the range. Also if it is HK then so be it.

Quoted: Quoted: Tell me it won't be Ruger! Ruger makes a bulletproof semi-auto, why the hell not? If they can make a pistol that pasts muster, good for them.

Bulletproof is not the ONLY thing you look for in a sidearm. Ergonomics, accuracy, features, usability and other factors also are an issue.

Bulletproof is not the ONLY thing you look for in a sidearm. Ergonomics, accuracy, features, usability and other factors also are an issue.

I think "you," the individual, is the key word in that phrase.  Rugers aren't sexy, but they are simple, rugged as a pitbull and, Uncle Sam's favorite, cheap!  Isn't Sig coming out with a new polymer DA pistol?  It seems foolish, given Glock's reliability history, that they should be excluded. This is going to be interesting to watch.

Cheers

What foreign country do we owe these days?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Tell me it won't be Ruger! Ruger makes a bulletproof semi-auto, why the hell not? If they can make a pistol that pasts muster, good for them. Bulletproof is not the ONLY thing you look for in a sidearm. Ergonomics, accuracy, features, usability and other factors also are an issue.

Ergonomic? Ruger is capable of doing it. The new 345 is very comfortable for a .45 DA.

Accuracy? Certainly everything they've ever made is combat accurate. My P90 will hang with a P220, even most good 1911's.

Features? That's up to the DOD to specify what they want, and the contractor to deliver. There's not much you can put on a handgun that Ruger hasn't done or isn't capable of doing.

Useability? Got me there. Never had a problem using anything Ruger made. Simple, simple, simple. I don't know how you could possibly make a pistol easier to use than a P series.

Other factors? These must be "cool factor", "sexy", "looks neat", "has a cool name" because honestly that's about 99% of what decides some people's purchases I think.

I'm not a Ruger cool-aid drinker, they have shortcomings like ALL guns, but they are certainly capable of making a fine combat handgun. Will they? We'll see.

The reason the P series from Ruger even exists is due to the US Military’s 9mm trials.  That was their entry, and while I can’t recall how the gun fared (from whatever gun magazine article I read, and you know how accurate those are), I can’t imagine any other manufacturer being able to beat Ruger on price (and price, IIRC was the reason the SIG P226 got the snub).

But anyway the question is, so we ended up with an M9 – but no – that was too big for some people’s hands – so in comes the M11 (SIG P228) and that’s great.

But what are people going to say about the HK .45?  Or the SIG P220?  Those are some big ass grips!

The DoD is making a fine decision going back to the .45, the fantasy of being in stuck in a foxhole with a NATO ally and the two of you gleefully sharing your 9mm ammo has finally retired.  

The more this problem is looked at, the simpler the answer becomes:

M1911-A1

___________________________________

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v607/dolomite1911/cowbell1sz.gifThe Original Dolomite® – Arfcom Refugee

as far as what the DoD is looking for, I think 2 factors were left out. The manufacturer has to make them in the US (as I recall, that was one of the requirements for berettas to be used) and capacity, which is the reason they switched from the 1911 to the beretta and from the M-14 to the M-16. The P90 does not have a good capacity at all. I think if they really are thinking of switching from 9mm back to .45, HK would be the front runner if they build a factory out here

I like the idea of the Hicap .45's, if they can be reliable enough.  Otherwise, the 1911 is a real good choice.

Since we still are obligated to use ball ammo, then .45acp is the only choice.  Proper training, if anyone is still capable of giving it, makes a 1911 the only choice.  

I can understand the idea of the D.A. so that panicky people can pull out a gun and shoot.  Not my idea of proper ttraining or tactics.  The same person can grab the pistol wrong (after all, the training has been minimal) and AD, scratch that, negligent discharge.  Simple, proper training will make a 1911 fine. It's a paperweight unless you cock it, or unless you flip off the safety if it already is cocked, and hold it correctly.  I do not see it as a problem.  I think the only issue one might have with 1911 design is possible maintenance issues with the grip safety, especially in sand.  But, that was also part of the initial test regime for acceptance, so the odds of a problem are minimal.

The JCP (Joint Combat Pistol) requirements can be found here:
www.fbo.gov/spg/ODA/USSOCOM/SOAL%2DKB/H92222%2D05%2DR%2D0017/Attachments.html

.45ACP, light rail, suppressor kit, night sights, SA/DA or DA, et al.

It's a draft for industry comment, so it's not the final product request.  The final one won't be too far from this one though.

So yeah, the Army's going  back to .45ACP, but it's not going to be the M1911A1.

CZ 97?